The Abortion Cases of Tomorrow, TODAY!

In response to the Supreme Court’s late night session last Thursday, Brett and Nazim discuss the Court’s recent injunction of the Louisiana Abortion Statute, and the Court’s reversal of a death penalty stay in Alabama for a defendant who was not provided his religious counselor of choice during the execution.  Law starts at (2:00).

[iframe style=”border:none” src=”//html5-player.libsyn.com/embed/episode/id/8583182/height/360/width//thumbnail/yes/render-playlist/no/theme/standard-mini/tdest_id/398366″ height=”360″ width=”” scrolling=”no” allowfullscreen webkitallowfullscreen mozallowfullscreen oallowfullscreen msallowfullscreen]
New Episode!

Advertisements

Is Congress Incompetent? A Play in Two Parts

I know that title is supposed to be a cliff-hanger, but the answer is yes.  In support of such a thesis, Brett and Nazim discuss the Court’s holdings in New Prime v. Oliveira and U.S. v. Stokeling, which both discuss how the Supreme Court is generally being used to clean up poorly written statutes.  The play concludes with a great Dr. Pepper analogy.  Law starts (01:52).

[iframe style=”border:none” src=”//html5-player.libsyn.com/embed/episode/id/8485739/height/360/width//thumbnail/yes/render-playlist/no/theme/standard-mini/tdest_id/398366″ height=”360″ width=”” scrolling=”no” allowfullscreen webkitallowfullscreen mozallowfullscreen oallowfullscreen msallowfullscreen]
New Episode!

Austin from Texas’ Fantasy SCOTUS League – February 2019 Ballot

Okay, so, I apologize for the mess I’ve made for the past couple of ballots. But, I have an excuse: it was Brett’s fault. I won’t say more. Anyway, this is a thing where we compete to predict the outcomes of some US supreme court cases covered here recently. If you need rules, here they are.

Otherwise, here is the February ballot. And, if you missed them because of all the ferrets, here are the January, December, and November ballots.

Anti Trust Falls

This week’s episode covers a case that is not even a fraction of as delicious as it sounds, Apple, Inc. v. Pepper, which covers whether Apple is engaging in Anti-Trust violations for how they allow apps on to your iPhone.  This episode goes off the rails early and often, so while the law starts at (05:37), you might miss which host doesn’t know how to use Microsoft Excel and which host is a master of the DARK WEB (the answer may surprise you!).

[iframe style=”border:none” src=”//html5-player.libsyn.com/embed/episode/id/8390051/height/360/width//thumbnail/yes/render-playlist/no/theme/standard-mini/tdest_id/398366″ height=”360″ width=”” scrolling=”no” allowfullscreen webkitallowfullscreen mozallowfullscreen oallowfullscreen msallowfullscreen]
New Episode!

Hot News From Hot Dudes 2019

Like all great podcasts, Brett and Nazim have devoted this week’s episode to all the topical news stories from two weeks ago, including Ginsburg’s health and the practicality of term limits, the Mueller investigation’s mystery corporation, and Judge Kav-another-beer’s first opinion.  Law starts at (05:20).

[iframe style=”border:none” src=”//html5-player.libsyn.com/embed/episode/id/8308682/height/360/width//thumbnail/yes/render-playlist/no/theme/standard-mini/tdest_id/398366″ height=”360″ width=”” scrolling=”no” allowfullscreen webkitallowfullscreen mozallowfullscreen oallowfullscreen msallowfullscreen]
New Episode!

Is This Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, Part 4

America’s favorite game returns, as Brett and Nazim decide whether Garza v. Idaho (can a lawyer override a client’s request for an appeal when the client waived appellate rights pursuant to a plea agreement) constitutes Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, along with a few other half-explained scenarios.  The law technically starts from the beginning but them goes on some kind of weird Mozzarella stick tangent before starting again at (09:28).

[iframe style=”border:none” src=”//html5-player.libsyn.com/embed/episode/id/8210408/height/360/width//thumbnail/yes/render-playlist/no/theme/standard-mini/tdest_id/398366″ height=”360″ width=”” scrolling=”no” allowfullscreen webkitallowfullscreen mozallowfullscreen oallowfullscreen msallowfullscreen]
New Episode!

Barristers Always Pay Their Debts

Today’s episode covers the specific nuances underlying Obdusky v. McCarthy and Holthus, a case with topics as sexy as the names in its caption, including debt collection, mortgages, and statutory interpretation.  Brett and Nazim spice it up even further by talking about non-legal legal work, rooting for the Eagles in the playoffs today, and Nazim’s beloved mason jar.  Law starts at (5:50).

[iframe style=”border:none” src=”//html5-player.libsyn.com/embed/episode/id/8131268/height/360/width//thumbnail/yes/render-playlist/no/theme/standard-mini/tdest_id/398366″ height=”360″ width=”” scrolling=”no” allowfullscreen webkitallowfullscreen mozallowfullscreen oallowfullscreen msallowfullscreen]
New Episode!

Austin from Texas’ Fantasy SCOTUS League – January Ballot!

I may or may not have forgotten to distribute the December ballot in this medium, so below are the links to both the December and January ballots for Austin from Texas’ fantasy SCOTUS league. If you don’t know about this, you pick some outcomes, and hope to do better than others. Most people who fill out all the ballots do really well, and have a good chance of beating one of the hosts.

December ballot link.

January ballot link.

More details and rules can be found here. This isn’t a very serious thing, so if you take it too seriously, you’re going to be disappointed.

Decisions, Decisions

Brett and Nazim celebrate the holiday lull between Xmas and New Years by discussing the recent decisions in Stitt v. US (ACCA interpretation of burglary) and Mount Lemon Fire District v. Guido (ADA interpretation of government agencies), while also vamping about the holiday season.  There’s more nonsense at the end the beginning, so if you don’t like hearing about how to celebrate New Years, the law ends after the case discussion.

New Episode!

The Blake Bortles of Supreme Court Cases

Just in time for the holidays, this week’s episode covers the case of American Legion v. American Humanist Association, which asks the Court whether a 93-year-old monument to World War I veterans violates the Establishment Clause because it is shaped like a cross.  The law technically starts at (02:25), but if you’re no-fun and the title of this episode isn’t intriguing to you, the law starts at (08:00).

New Episode!